Autumn, thanks again for your thoughtful reply. You've given us a lot of food for thought.

I might mention that I was well into middle age before I began reading horoscopes for other people, and 40 before I even started to learn astrology. Since then, I've put on a lot of astro-mileage.

When I first read some horoscopes on my own, it was a huge awakening. I did feel that a horoscope showed us the wiring of the soul. Or that astrology let us look under the hood (bonnet, to any Brits here) of the external human being. It felt sacred.

In that state, when I first read some on-line charts for people, I retained some of that sense of caution and awe. Possibly as a result, I had some good beginner's luck.

What I have learned since then, is that most on-line "read my chart" requests are not asking for esoterica. Querents primarily want to know about their relationships, their work, their bodily health. Maybe travel, housing, or money. Rarely do I find someone wondering about her spiritual purpose in life.

And I am good with that, because in my cosmos, people incarnate into the material plane for a reason. I think that we, as human beings, are precisely meant to deal with our bodies, other people's bodies, our material circumstances, and exterior personalities. We'll live in the next dimension soon enough.

So to come full circle to my OP, I wonder to what extent it is possible to interact with people on their own material terms, while keeping a spiritual context for my efforts.

Granted, people come to spirituality on their own, and on their own terms, but Wherein Is It Written that you or I cannot be part of their process? Maybe we were the ones "meant" for their spiritual progress??

In one brand of spiritual astrology, people are on the planet to learn and to teach. What this looks like for us is indicated by our pre-natal lunar and solar eclipses. But we are on the planet to teach-- even if by negative example.

I don't think it is ethical to answer-- or even to explore-- certain types of astrological insights when dealing with vulnerable people. But I will give you an example, or case study, of practical, kitchen-table advice.

A wife suddenly learns that her husband is leaving her for another woman, planning an immediate separation and subsequent divorce. She is understandably focused on the astrology of the "Why?" or "Will he return?" She's never even thought about what a divorce entails in practical terms. So after explaining her rough 7th house, it doesn't hurt to suggest that, if she hasn't done so already, that she immediately deal with any joint bank accounts or liquid assets, so that the husband doesn't suddenly clean her out financially. Cancel any joint credit cards. See a lawyer immediately to draft up a separation agreement. This is for her own protection, based on decades of wives' real experiences.

This isn't about tinkering with the wife's soul. It is about trying to be helpful in the here and now. If the wife says, "Buzz off," because she knows all about divorce issues, no harm done.

But I am not saying, whatsoever, Autumn, that you or anybody else should give astrological or collateral advice if you do not wish to.

And I do greatly appreciate the spiritual approach that you bring to astrology.

I think ,
Praying before a consult is a welcome distraction which takes away your mind from pre-conceptions you may have and start afresh. The god doesn't matter the pause and blank mind does help.

I agree! Some of the ancient Greek astrologers prayed to Mercury, the god of astrology. Lilly was a Christian. That in itself raises some interesting theological questions. But regardless, there is a long history of astrologers trying to create a separate and distinctive space between their everyday lives and their time with the horoscope.

waybread you seriously do not need to explain yourself to anyone. You are ian intelligent mature individual well capable in making decisions and accepting results.

What you need to consider is that asking guidance from inexperienced indoviduals will result in perpetuating problems resulting in some turbulent results for you. After all energy released out by you returns home to you. Good intentions that create problems or turbulence for others do not tend to have happy endings for the perpetrator irrespective of intent.

The best action is to equip yourself with a professional consulting therapy course and undergo own therapy to experience first hand. I think there are some year long ones...not that long!

Otherwise you are going into battle with a reed.

One tip i may give is that focusing on whatever it is ...question, skill, problem....and meditating for as long as it takes usually gives excellent results.

I dont know which way is best for you to meditate...its very individual. Techniques abound. I prefer movement or sleep but its a personal to user thing.

Sorry, Autumn. I appreciate your willingness to give me advice. Lord knows I could use some.

But we seem to have very different metaphysical and practical understandings of human nature and astrology.

Actually I was in therapy for a while with a Ph. D. clinical psychologist who subsequently published some books that made her well-known. I've also been a client in a few stints of marriage counseling. I learned through these sessions that psychologists, no matter how credentialed, are not always terrifically helpful. One of them was actually a distinct waste of money; although in general I sometimes recommend that people seek the services of a licensed therapist, notably for PTSD, childhood sexual abuse, depression, &c. I also sometimes recommend Al Anon.

I think sometimes it is helpful for someone coming to a forum with a "poor me" attitude to get angry. It shows he is willing to stand up for himself and recognize that core of self-worth. Anger is a natural human emotion. We don't have to fear it. Everybody has Mars somewhere.

Ultimately each person has to take responsibility for his/her own identity and actions. No one else can do this for her. This includes people seeking answers on an astrology forum.

The OP here is actually about the question of praying, meditating, centering, or letting-go, prior to initiating a horoscope reading.

I started out with a raw feeling that there was something profoundly wrong with the way the world was going and that this had to be turned around. And with modern science. As Arthur Koestler said, around the time of the A bomb, they have done the equivalent of handing a fun to a two-year-old. And I think that the change that came about in the sixteenth century if not before was to assume tat "the natural world" was strictly material and had no mind or soul and could be understood "objectively" by nutriments and had nothing to tell us.
Until the experiment that showed that whether an electron was a wve or particle depended on whether or not it was observed. Now I believe that that also tells us a lot about human beings. Do we ask ourselves whether we are the same person whether or not we know we are being observed?
I remember my own first moment of true consciousness, at around four I would say, when I first became aware that I was actually breathing, it wasn't just happening to me. What a responsibility! What if I forgot and just died? Then a feeling came over me and I felt somehow I was being touched and I knew i was now like my older friends and able to say like them "I did this yesterday" or " I will do this next week" and that this was something that happened to everybody.
Something maybe that happened to an an electron/wave? And did something also change the scientists who observed it?
When two sentient humans (or more) encounter each other, are both the same afterwards? Science has shown that there are such thins called "mirror neurons" that make the same neurons fire upon the brain of an observer of an action that are fired up in that of the performer. For the early years we all, if we are to survive, must learn to imitate those around us.
But "scientists" by imputing only mechanics to the world around us, and spending so much of their energy in "objective" observations, would logically subject themselves to the danger of becoming not people, but "things"" themselves, As William Blake aid "We become what we behold."
Astrology is the only art/science that has held out and has not left the observer out of the equation. I also think that logically the planets themselves must alter their meanings, ever so slightly perhaps, with every contact they make with humans or each other.
That is why, if and if ever, the "scientists" turn around and retrace their steps, we may be ble to help._________________Beauty is truth, truth beauty

It is important to distinguish between the physical, natural, and medical sciences; social science; and the humanities. It is important to distinguish between science, scientists, and scientism. Too often astrologers who criticize science do not know any scientists personally, and do not know what goes on in science today.

Thank you for your interest, waybread.
Yes, I have known scientists personally, both as friends and teachers in the undergrad science program I pursued. Most I liked, but there were exceptions. Some are also close relatives.
And I admire their history, especially Pasteur, Semmelweis, George Washington Carver and Luther Burbank. And the contemporary scientists who're doing their best to halt or slow down climate change or even convince some people that it exists and is caused by human behaviour .A tough row to hoe.
Actually I was prompted to insert my comments by three factors.
One was an article in The Atlantic Monthly, "The Universe is as Spooky as Einstein Thought" (February 10, 2017) on quantum physics. They were discussing the double-slit experiment and why a photon can be a "wave"or a particle depending on the method of measuring. I didn't comprehend most of what they said, except the concrete facts and that they were puzzled and dissatisfied.
The second was a long-held opinion of my own that scientists, as a body, have long neglected their social role. Giving a warring world bigger and better means to destroy itself, is like, as Arthur Koestler said, handing a loaded gun to a two-year-old. Not to speak of inventing pesticides, or, for that matter, artificial fertilizers ; by introducing these into the natural world with no regard for the longterm effects, they are responsible for a lot of the trouble we are in. Not to speak of global warming, of course..
The third is leaving the observer (they themselves) When studying sociology, they do not consider the effects produced by the experts who advise advertisers how to sell their products, or those who tell politicians what to say to get votes. Nor the increasing automation of work the new discoveries in AI bring about, using it to replace actual humans who could do a much better job, in my opinion. Plus the economists who despite all evidence to the contrary continue to believe that free trade is the answer to everything.
There has to be a way to do science whereby scientific observation per se would have a reciprocal effect on the knower ("For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction") that would boost his/her level of consciousness and sense of responsibility.
There are at least two schools of thought about what "science" is. The first is the one we are used to, espoused by Francis Bacon, in which Man puts Nature to the test and, by learning her laws, gains power over her, remaking her for the benefit of mankind. And to give some men power over others. The experimental interrogations, usually with instruments, are described in detail and have to be reproducible.
Then there is Goethe's way, which Wikipedia also describes ("Goethean
Science.") which I will discuss next._________________Beauty is truth, truth beauty

This is a continuation, not a reply.oee, etc., A
Quoting from page 1 of Goethe's Autobiography (blogged by Goethe Girl in '"Goethe etc., August 2009")
"It was on the 28th of August at the stroke of twelve noon in Frankfurt on the Main. The Constellation was auspicious. The Sun was in Virgo and at its culmination for the day. Jupiter and Venus looked amicably up on it, and Mercury was not hostile. Saturn and Mars maintained indifference. Only the Moon, just then becoming full, was in a position to exert averse force, because its planetary hour had begun. It did, indeed, resist my birth, which did not take place until the hour had passed.
" These good aspects, which astrologers in later years taught me to take very highly, were probably responsible for my survival, for the midwife was so unskilled -- that I was brought into the world as good as dead, and only with great difficulty could I be made to open my eyes and see the light."
"Goethe began his autobiography with the above description of his birth. He was somewhat fanciful, for he rejected the 'metaphysical assumptions' of astrology, namely that one's path in life was determined by position of the planets and other stars at the moment of one's birth.
"Nevertheless. he saw fate (Schicksal), an element of what he referred to as necessity (Notwendigkeit) determining one's life in an 'incomprehensible way' (auf unbegreifliche Weise'). Moral freedom was achieved by the individual working within the limitations imposed by necessity and thereby crafting a meaningful life .Goethe's views would seem to have something in common with the Ancients, especially the Stoics, an aspect I have not investigated much in connection with Goethe. There was a great amount of willfulness in his view of the world, especially as he grew older, perhaps influenced by a resistance to mysticism, as willing soothing to be the case would make it so.'_________________Beauty is truth, truth beauty

this is a continuation, not a reply
The reference to the Moon's hour , on a Thursday, is in some conflict with what little I know about planetary hours. When I calculate the Moon's hour from the surmise and sunset given by Google, (5:26 am and 7;11 PM), it lasts from 11:10 am to 12:18 pm; when I take it from the time the Sun contacts the Ascendant to when it contacts the Descendant (5:14 am to 6:47 pm) it lasts from10:53 am to 12:01 pm. Am I to understand that the Moon hour began at the last stage of labor and retarded it? Or was Goethe not really being serious here? In any event, the birth certificate quoted by Lois Rodden gives a birth time "between noon and one pm". and uses 12:30, whereas I think noon is more accurate.
It was a Full Moon birth, with the Sun at 5 Vi 10 and the Moon at 11 Pi 12 par tile Sedna at 11 Pi 45.[/quote]_________________Beauty is truth, truth beauty

Thanks for the comment, Waybread.
I am trying to relate "pray before reading" to its scientific analogy, "be open to inspiration while observing.". It didn't start out that way, but when I read an article about Francis Bacon, the author mentioned that Goethe had a different idea,that nature would not give up her secrets when treated in that manner.And Goethe said a lot that responded to my own concerns. so I began to study him. But definitely he belongs under "Philosophy and Science" and I thought it would confuse people if I broke off the first thread and started a new one.
His science was part of his life experience and total character, and his horoscope shows his genius. I think that today's scientists think being objective means keeping your feelings out of your observations, whereas Goethe thought they were part of your apparatus and were refined by your
contact with other people and understanding their points of view. He was also attuned to the social currents of his time. The point of view that society and the natural world, if they are different, reflect each other and can be understood in terms of each other, means that one can't be such a narrow specialist. I am glad to find out that some of them now are running for office and hope they are successful. I think just as a broad background is necessary for science, a scientific one can help a person in politics. Just look at Angela Merkel! And also, focusing on "nature" almost always brings revelations about oneself, which if a person resists them, block off further progress.
So I thought "pray before reading" came closest to what I was trying to say._________________Beauty is truth, truth beauty

Hello, Waybread!
I appreciate scientific work and admit scientists can be passionate about their work, but I wonder if it is a particular theory of the world rather than nature itself they are passinate about. And proving the world is a logical place. And they also may be unconsciously or consciously, using some of Goethe's methods.
Francis Bacon assumed the human mind to be the ultimate subject (i.e. observer, interpreter and actor.}
That was at odds with another, Medieval or earlier, concept of "The Great Chain of Being" which still belongs to collective psychology: God is to Man as Man is to Woman. as humanity is to living nature, as animals are to plants, as living nature is to non-living, and so on.
These parallel dichotomies are not one-way streets: woman observes man, and his attention helps to spur her creative drive, and, since "for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" she inspires his creativity as well. As with every human-to-human encounter, both sides are changed, neither is ever exactly the same again. For better or worse. Feelings are things, objects, and cannot be read out of the equation, however one might try, Which is why "The Sorrows of the Young Werther" was such a sensation.
The encounter of the human mind with nature is of the same sort. Leaving out emotion, assuming nature is purely mechanical, and limiting oneself to logic and the five official senses, from which, arguably, a Creator can be logically deduced. effectively puts Man at the pinnacle of creation; assuming as Bacon did, that all relationships are top down and no back talk, he must answer only to men of a higher rank than he.
But to add a sixth sense, i.e. esp, would be to admit that human desire could have an effect on the results of an experiment, so that it might not be reproducible, and so topple the whole edifice.
to be continued_________________Beauty is truth, truth beauty

I think you'd have to distinguish between the natural and physical or "hard" sciences. An exploration geologist or field ecologist is probably more driven by love of the great outdoors, whereas a theoretical physicist would have to love all of the number-crunching and the the purity of an abstraction.

It may help to think of scientists as a collection of highly talented and educated people, who work in an academic, government agency, or corporate setting. This makes them a lot like everybody else. Most of them fall in love, go out for a beer with the guys, raise children, love music, or do most of the things non-scientists do. Some are atheists, with a Richard Dawkins at the extreme end of that pole. Others are deeply religious.

For more on my thoughts about science, see my thread on this board re: why astrology is not a pseudo-science. In a nutshell, science today is absolutely the wrong comparison with astrology today.

Contact Deborah Houlding
| terms and conditions
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated